9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1302 - SC - CustomsRefund of amounts deposited towards provisional duty - whether claim for refund of amounts deposited towards provisional duty, as a condition for clearance of imported goods can be the subject matter of refund after conclusion of assessment proceedings and having regard to its outcome, under Section 18 of the Customs Act? HELD THAT - It is brought to the notice of this Court that a judgment subsequent to the ruling in Allied i.e. SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. CUS. 2005 (3) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT appears to have expressed a different view in that the Court held that to maintain a claim for refund, the assessee has to establish that he or it had paid the amount for which relief is sought and had not passed on the burden to the consumers. This judgment though rendered by a three Judge Bench, overlooked the ruling in Allied - Furthermore, even though the judgment has generally referred to the nine Judge Bench ruling in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT nevertheless the specific observations in Para 104 appears to have escaped the attention of the Court. There is no infirmity with the findings and conclusions recorded in the impugned judgments, which are in accord with the ratio in Allied - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issue involves the question of whether a claim for refund of amounts deposited towards provisional duty for clearance of imported goods can be subject to refund after assessment proceedings under Section 18 of the Customs Act. The judgment considers conflicting decisions on the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to provisional assessment. Summary: In the present case, the Supreme Court examined whether a claim for refund of amounts paid towards provisional duty for imported goods can be entertained after assessment proceedings under Section 18 of the Customs Act. The Court referred to previous judgments, including "Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. M/s. Oriental Exports, New Delhi" and "Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd." The Court held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to provisional assessment even after finalization of proceedings. The impugned judgments in these appeals followed the views expressed in the aforementioned cases. Furthermore, the Court noted a subsequent judgment in "Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs," which took a different stance. This judgment required the assessee to prove that the burden of payment was not passed on to consumers to maintain a claim for refund. However, the Court found that this judgment overlooked the ruling in "Allied" and did not consider specific observations in "Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors." The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles laid down in previous decisions. Ultimately, the Court held that the judgment in "Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd." should be confined to the facts of that case. Consequently, the findings and conclusions in the impugned judgments, consistent with the ratio in "Allied," were upheld. As a result, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
|
